delaying Maghrib until the very end of its time and performing ʿIshāʾ at the very beginning of its own, for nothing in the report establishes the contrary beyond doubt—the narrator’s wording will bear either reading.

Their next point of disagreement concerns the admissibility of analogy (qiyās) in this matter: may the rest of the prayers offered during travel be likened to the Prophet’s combining at ʿArafāt and Muzdalifah? In other words, one might argue, “A prayer that becomes obligatory while traveling may be combined, the precedent being the people’s combination at ʿArafāt and Muzdalifah.” This was the view of Sālim ibn ʿAbd Allāh—namely, that such an analogy is valid. Yet qiyās in acts of worship is inherently weak. These, then, are the roots of the dispute over whether combining is permissible at all.

The second issue—namely, the manner of combining—has likewise divided those who allow it while traveling. Some hold that the preferable course is to defer the earlier prayer so that it is performed together with the later one; nonetheless, should both be prayed together at the very start of the earlier prayer’s time, that is acceptable. This is one of the two narrations from Mālik. Others give the two options equal standing, meaning that one may either advance the later prayer into the time of the earlier or delay the earlier into the later; this is the opinion of al-Shāfiʿī and the report transmitted by the scholars of Medina from Mālik, whereas the first is the report of Ibn al-Qāsim on his authority. Mālik favored the first form of combining because it is firmly attested in the ḥadīth of Anas. Those who regard the two forms as equivalent do so on the ground that the obligation to act on a report is not weighed by comparing the relative probity of its transmitters—that is, no narrator’s uprightness overrides another’s. Accordingly, if the ḥadīth of Muʿādh is sound it must be acted upon just as the ḥadīth of Anas is, provided both chains are trustworthy, even if the narrators of one are deemed more reliable than those of the other.

The third issue concerns the factors that permit combining. All who allow it agree that travel is among them, but they differ over combining while resident and over the conditions of a journey that make it lawful. Some consider the mere fact of travel—any journey of whatever description—sufficient grounds for combining. Others require that one actually be on the move and that only certain kinds of journeys qualify. The opinion that requires active travel is that reported from Mālik by Ibn al-Qāsim, for Mālik said: “A traveler may not combine unless the journey is pressing on him.” Those who impose no such condition—al-Shāfiʿī and the other report from Mālik—rely on the statement of Ibn ʿUmar, “Whenever the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, was hurried on by the march…,” whereas their opponents base themselves on the apparent sense of the ḥadīth of Anas and others.

They have likewise disagreed, as noted, about the kinds of travel that allow combining. Some say it must be a journey of devotion such as pilgrimage or jihad; this is the apparent wording in the report of Ibn al-Qāsim. Others maintain that any lawful journey suffices, excluding only travel undertaken for sin; this is the view of al-Shāfiʿī and the report transmitted by the scholars of Medina from Mālik.